So I have been trying to understand this but I just don't!

[rosered32]

A co worker's son is facing 16 years to life in jail for having had conscentual sex with a young woman. Okay he was 18 and she was 15. She presued him not the other way around and she was interested in keeping it up but he said no. They did it twice, and he deided he couldn't any more as he felt that it was not right and went on to find a woman his age. The young woman didn't like this and told her guardian. Her guardian has put him in jail for statitory rape. After two years of fighting this he has given up. He has decided not to try to go to actual trial as he knows how it looks.

Now my problem with all of this is that NOTHING is going to happen to the girl and she is still chasing older men. I know why the law is out there, but what about the girls who chase the older guys and they give in as the girls say yes. And I know that it needs to be there, but what happens to the girls in these situations? I personally don't think it is okay to only punish half of the problem in these situations. I know there are girls who get taken advantage of that this law protects, but what about the ones who think it is cool to date an older guy and such. I just don't know. I just am feeling bad for my co worker and I had to vent.

Thanks now back to the 40th anniversary of Rudolph The red-Nosed Reindeer.

Comments

[spiritofthewolf.livejournal.com]

He is my opinion from a male point of view. I feel very little for this guy. All he had to do is say no and wait for her to become legal. While the girl has a dangerous problem to where she could end up pregant, AIDS, or dead. cause there are alot of perverts that would love to have sex with a young girl like her.
If a guy can't wait and keep it in his pants until he finds a girl that he can have sex with that wont get him arrested, then he's getting what he derseves. No court would let him go just because he gave in to a 15 year old. I'm sorry if I seem alittle cold.

[rosered32.livejournal.com]

No you aren't being cold. I understand, I just think it is unfair for only one of them to be punished. I think he should have something happen, I just think that it isn't fair that only one of them is in trouble for two people's actions. Young women aren't being held responsible for their part in these actions and they just keep trying to go out with older guys. And I am not talking about the young women who get taken advantage of by oldewr men. I am pointing to the young women who think it's cool to try to get older guys to do their biding. The ones whose additude is "I can't help it if you are old. I still want you." I am not asking for understanding about the guy, I am just disappointed in our system that only says "He's wrong." They both are.

[spiritofthewolf.livejournal.com]

I understand what youre saying. It's kinda hard to punish the girl when all a guy has to do is say no. The parents should do the punishing and also get these girls counseling. I like to go into chatrooms and every once in a while, and even there there are young girls coming into the rooms lookin for older guys. I once on AOL had a 13 year old pretend that she was 22. After talking to her for a bit I fekt something wasn't right just by the way she answered my questions. She admitted that she was 13 but she liked older guys. I refused to talk to her anymore, but she would IM me everytime I'd come online. It finally stopped when I contacted AOL and told them what she was doing.
I told them they needed to contact her parents and tell them.
That was a clear case of a child lookin for attention.

[jeebachu.livejournal.com]

Was that in this state? From what I've read of the california penal code, 8-9 years is generally the longest "standard" sentence in the code. Or is he looking at 2 charges of statutory?

[rosered32.livejournal.com]

Yes this state and I don't know.

[loneromeo.livejournal.com]

according to penal code 261-262, if they are three years or less apart in age, it possibly qualifies as a misdemeanor, with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 8 years per incident.
2 counts. 6-16 years. AND 4000 dollars in penalties.

3 things are going to help him if any from what I know.
its all Reasonable doubt.
1. Prove they had sex that night that long ago.
2. Prove she didnt want to.
3. Bring to light why she changed her mind.

Penal code 263 states that guilt of the crime is dependant on the outrage of the victim. bring out proof that she was apathetic.

Granted - Criminal law isn't really my gig...but...

[kailara.livejournal.com]

Actually, with statutory rape, all they have to show is that they had sex and that she's not 18 and he is. Done. End of story.

Prove that she didn't want to, and you get to tack on sexual assault and possibly child molestation (though the age range here makes that unlikely).

What surprises me is that he's looking at felony penalties - I was under the impression that statutory rape was a misdemeanor unless there was a significant age gap (10+ years) or the "victim" was under a certain age (13 I believe in Cali).

The fact that he's staring down a potential 16 year sentence makes me wonder if he's up for more than the statutory charge...

Re: Granted - Criminal law isn't really my gig...but...

[loneromeo.livejournal.com]

to clarify...

Statutory rape seems to be a blanket term with two seperate criminal charges it covers.

misdemeanor sexual misconduct - consented sex with an individual under the age of consent, but within reasonable age of the indivudual the act was with.

felony sexual assault - wherein age is of an abnormal difference, or the act was without the consent of the minor.

question for K, if they cant prove the act ever happened, no case right?

Re: Granted - Criminal law isn't really my gig...but...

[kailara.livejournal.com]

This is what comes of never looking at the California penal code...

Ok, it's entirely possible that California defines statutory rape differently, but what I was taught was that statutory rape, misdemeanor sexual assault, and felony sexual assault are three very distinct things.

Statutory rape is any sexual intercourse between a person (in Cali it's male or female) who is above the age of majority (18 in Cali) and a person who has not achieved majority. Consensuality is not an issue. Intent to commit rape is not necessary. The act and the age are all there is to it.

Sexual misconduct, as I understand it, entails an entire spectrum of behaviors - including frotteurism, voyeurism, public nudity, and any number of other things.

Felony assault would include sodomy, forced oral intercourse, and other more serious acts.

Rape (not the statutory version) is non-consensual sexual intercourse.

If they can't prove sexual intercourse they have no case - but it sounds like he's admitted it happened, which kinda tanks that.

If they can't prove it was non-consensual, I think a lot of the potential felony charges will fail as well - but that's hard to prove one way or the other. He says she pursued him, she says he misinterpreted and she wasn't interested. *shrug* Why do you think I'm not a trial lawyer... :)

[dalisair.livejournal.com]

even THAT just sucks.

[ladynikita29.livejournal.com]

it is difficult... i had a friend accuse by parents of sleeping with their daughter after he gave her drunken ass a sofa for the night, and he deflected her advances. same age difference, so he had to go to court. his word against her folks... ya know. i think he was fined, but even that for a 19 year old on his own from the age of 15 was alot for him. there has got to be a better way... a better way than possible life in jail... but i am not sure what it is.

[underweasel.livejournal.com]

It's hard figuring that out in California anymore. With the population of hispanics reaching 50% now in L.A. The laws and customs south of the border can allow them to get married at an age where our laws define them as still a child. I think the age of consent in Canada is 16.

It tends to send mixed signals, as our populations become more mixed. Still, we need some cutoff point somewhere, whether it's an arbitrary one or not.

As for each being responsible, there needs to be a cutoff point there also. Responsibility means knowing that it was wrong to be agressive. Where do you make that. 16? 12? 9? Young girls are naturally agressive as a learning process. It is never good to punish a learning process at a young age. It is the older person that is more "worldly" that has to resist. The smaller the age difference, the less resistance should be required of the older person before the law takes effect. I know at 18, I could have been prosecuted for my 17 year old girlfriends. when the hormones are going, it's not always possible to "wait 3 more months".

[jareth-gk.livejournal.com]

Usually stuff like that is at the discretion of the Judge to decide on. The bigger problem is that there is no way to really prove that she is the on that did the chasing unless there are people willing to truthfully testify on his behalf that she was indeed the instigator. Even then... It is illegal, and by the letter of the law... he is guilty regardless. I guess the thought is that he should have had more restraint and known better being the older party. Yet at that age he is so close to her age... *shrug* hard to see it as wrong. I am betting the judge may be leniant considering how close they are in age. No way of knowing till the trial.

Wish there was a way be protected from overly sexual young girls chasing down older guys. I had the same thing nearly happen to me with a 12 year old girl. Lied about her age, and stuff. When the shit hit the fan I was nearly in for 20 years cause of a horny young girl. I think that was crap, but I was able to make a deal with the parents and the police to basically have a restraining order placed on e *me*, and then promise never to see her again. I easily kept that promise.

That was back when I was 21. It's 10 years later. Hmmm. Wonder what that little girl is up to these days. She would be 22 now. Heh... I can play now. *smirks*

x Jeremy M. - Just a dirty old man. :P